I have no direct evidence. My bet is based on the simple fact that 1) the claim of access being cut off by a state actor is pretty huge and completely unsubstantiated, and 2) random internet outages are not uncommon.
Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets and wild conspiracy theories. You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility.
> Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets
I was surprised by your claim that wikileaks posted something antisemitic, so I googled for it.
Is http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikil... what you're talking about? I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews"). Like, the article's explanation of why it's anti-semitic starts off with "this might be a little hard to follow" -- not something you'd expect in an article throwing around serious accusations.
Hanlon's razor is the obvious objection, and goes unaddressed. --reputation[Slate];
> and wild conspiracy theories
Interesting, any you'd care to link?
> You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility.
I'm merely assuming they aren't going to be obviously incompetent? Like, maybe the phrasing will be self-serving... but look at GP... he's seriously suggesting that they may have mistaken a gardening accident for a state actor...
>I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews").
It's using the clearly anti-Semitic (((echo))) format, and linking those people to a mysterious cabal working against them. That is an incredibly standard anti-Semitic view. In what way is that not prejudiced against Jews?
>Hanlon's razor is the obvious objection, and goes unaddressed.
What is Hanlon's razor for including an anti-Semitic key in their tweet? I'm honestly asking what the simpler explanation is for them including that, and then going on to link (((those people))) to an international conspiracy, something people have accused Jews of for centuries.
>I'm merely assuming they aren't going to be obviously incompetent? Like, maybe the phrasing will be self-serving... but look at GP... he's seriously suggesting that they may have mistaken a gardening accident for a state actor...
Intentionally misleading/lying isn't being incompetent. They could know or think that it was an accident, but intentionally spin it as foul play to reinforce the narrative they've been spinning.
Offering a reward is not the same as "[posting] wild conspiracy theories," which is what you claimed they did. Posting a wild conspiracy theory in this case would be openly accusing a specific person or group of people of murder with no evidence.
I would call this "wanting to fact check a conspiracy theory," which I view as a good thing generally, and especially good in the case of wikileaks.
> Intentionally misleading/lying isn't being incompetent. They could know or think that it was an accident, but intentionally spin it as foul play to reinforce the narrative they've been spinning.
They could, but this would require them to assume no one would figure out the actual cause -- aka a lot of cost with no benefit. Seems surprisingly stupid/pointless/shortsighted.
Then why use it? You're saying it's more likely they hadn't heard of it, but used it anyway? You've never heard of it, have you ever surrounded a reference to people you don't like and are accusing of nefarious deeds with triple parentheses? What about the additional part about a shadowy cabal that you ignored?
>Offering a reward is not the same as "[posting] wild conspiracy theories," which is what you claimed they did.
If I offer a reward for proof that aliens abducted Elvis, you don't consider that lending credence to a conspiracy theory?
>I would call this "wanting to fact check a conspiracy theory," which I view as a good thing generally, and especially good in the case of wikileaks.
Why is Wikileaks in the business of "fact checking a conspiracy theory"? I thought they were about, you know, leaks.
>They could, but this would require them to assume no one would figure out the actual cause
No it doesn't. It just requires that if someone else figures out the actual cause they deny it. Zero cost.
> Why is Wikileaks in the business of "fact checking a conspiracy theory"? I thought they were about, you know, leaks.
Leaks of significance are of course worth more. Soliciting leaks is absolutely something they do (and should do).
> No it doesn't. It just requires that if someone else figures out the actual cause they deny it. Zero cost.
Well, except that denying hard evidence doesn't usually work (#include those who have been leak subjects). Also people all over the web are having conversations like this one, so the situation degenerating into a head-said/she-said situation would have a cost. Which as I pointed out before was an obvious outcome of their tweet.
